[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071128153312.14144472@freepuppy.rosehill>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:33:12 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question regarding mutex locking
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:45:13 +0100
Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl> wrote:
> Larry Finger wrote, On 11/28/2007 04:41 PM:
>
> > Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net> writes:
> >>
> >>> If a particular routine needs to lock a mutex, but it may be entered with that mutex already locked,
> >>> would the following code be SMP safe?
> >>>
> >>> hold_lock = mutex_trylock()
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> if (hold_lock)
> >>> mutex_unlock()
> >> When two CPUs may enter the critical region at the same time, what is
> >> the point of the mutex? Also, the first CPU may unlock the mutex while
> >> the second one is still inside the critical region.
> >
> > Thank you for that answer. I think that I'm finally beginning to understand.
>
> Probably it would be faster without these "...", which look like
> no man's land...
>
> hold_lock = mutex_trylock()
> if (hold_lock) {
> /* SMP safe */
> ...
> mutex_unlock()
> } else {
> /* SMP unsafe */
> ...
> /* maybe try again after some break or check */
> }
>
> Regards,
> Jarek P.
WTF are you teaching a lesson on how NOT to do locking?
Any code which has this kind of convoluted dependency on conditional
locking is fundamentally broken.
--
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists